You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to marketing@openoffice.apache.org by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> on 2011/10/31 20:15:46 UTC
Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
are making strong progress.
I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something else
2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
members to decide among the alternatives.
Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
one way or another.
Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
-Rob
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
> are making strong progress.
>
> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>
> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
> else
>
> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>
> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
> members to decide among the alternatives.
>
> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
> one way or another.
>
> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>
> -Rob
>
This seems quite sane and reasonable to me. Maybe we need to differentiate,
between "project name" vs "product name"? Or not...
Currently the "project" name is "Apache OpenOffice.org"
if one is to believe our main web page --
http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/
If, at some point, the "product" and "project" are to have the same name,
fine.
Just pointing this out.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK
"This is no social crisis
Just another tricky day for you."
-- "Tricky Day", the Who
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jza@openoffice.org
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
> >> >> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
> >> >> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
> >> >> are making strong progress.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or
> something
> >> >> else
> >> >>
> >> >> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
> >> >> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
> >> >> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
> >> >> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
> >> >> members to decide among the alternatives.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
> >> >> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
> >> >> one way or another.
> >> >>
> >> >> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
> >> >>
> >> >> -Rob
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting,
> >> usually
> >> > it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can
> >> easily
> >> > bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
> >> > I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like
> they
> >> > do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a
> good
> >> > idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in
> case
> >> the
> >> > voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
> >> > So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
> >> > votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate
> >> [DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads. So it would be clear which is which.
> >> And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person
> >> makes, so they can change their vote freely.
> >>
> >> But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no
> >> consensus.
> >>
> >> Would that work?
> >>
> >
> > not really
> >
>
> Could you explain your concern again? Or make a counter-proposal?
>
I believe I did already. Basically having a more automatized way of
accounting votes, review the discussions and come to a conclusion without
needing to weedout long discussions (maybe a voting on posts on relevance a
la slashdot).
>
> -Rob
>
> >
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >> > --
> >> > *Alexandro Colorado*
> >> > *OpenOffice.org* Español
> >> > http://es.openoffice.org
> >> > fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Alexandro Colorado*
> > *OpenOffice.org* Español
> > http://es.openoffice.org
> > fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
> >
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
>> >> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
>> >> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
>> >> are making strong progress.
>> >>
>> >> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
>> >> else
>> >>
>> >> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>> >>
>> >> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
>> >> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
>> >> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
>> >> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
>> >> members to decide among the alternatives.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
>> >> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
>> >> one way or another.
>> >>
>> >> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>> >>
>> >> -Rob
>> >>
>> >
>> > My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting,
>> usually
>> > it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can
>> easily
>> > bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
>> > I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
>> > do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
>> > idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case
>> the
>> > voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
>> > So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
>> > votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
>> >
>>
>> The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate
>> [DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads. So it would be clear which is which.
>> And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person
>> makes, so they can change their vote freely.
>>
>> But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no
>> consensus.
>>
>> Would that work?
>>
>
> not really
>
Could you explain your concern again? Or make a counter-proposal?
-Rob
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > --
>> > *Alexandro Colorado*
>> > *OpenOffice.org* Español
>> > http://es.openoffice.org
>> > fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
> fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, it is a condition of Apache governance that it be done on the list. That is a requirement for how The Apache Way works. It is up to all of us to have it work.
>
Is that really true? Or is that just convention of projects that have
a single list? For example, didn't we just vote to agree to let the
Forums make decisions related to Forum governance on the forums.
> I don't believe, however, that ooo-marketing counts as a list where deliberation on matters of the project should happen.
>
It is useful to make a distinction between discussions/deliberations
and decisions. And note the power and value of due notice.
For example, if we agree to always notify on the ooo-dev list about an
important topic that is coming up for discussion, then I don't see why
the actual discussion could not happen on another list controlled by
the project. Similarly, it is not rocket science to cc ooo-dev on the
vote thread so anyone who is not following the discussion can jump
over to ooo-marketing to catch up, or to just vote. This is very
similar to how we cc private@incubator.apache,org when we start a
committer [VOTE] thread. It is about fairness, due notice and
exclusivity. In the end, people cast votes, not lists.
> It does not strike me that a lazy consensus is appropriate there, unless it is to bring something to this list.
>
The functions handled by this project will continue to grow.
Marketing, QA, translation, documentation, site management, all added
on to the dev work that is growing as well. We already have the
largest dev list at Apache. We need to develop ways of scaling. Not
vertically via a hierarchy. But horizontally through self-selected
groups of participants that are working on a common goal. And we need
to do this in a way that allows us to preserve focus. Having all
discussions on all topics, in all languages, on ooo-dev is not going
to succeed. But we can certainly ensure that, for example, ooo-dev is
cc'ed on all initial proposal posts, or all initial vote posts, so
those who do have an interest can jump in.
> I also notice that the choice of product name suddenly forked onto ooo-user too. Whoever did that was not being helpful.
>
That looks like a user brought that discussion up on their own on
ooo-user. It is good that they care enough about the product to
comment on it.
-Rob
>
> - Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acolorado@gmail.com [mailto:acolorado@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
>> >> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
>> >> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
>> >> are making strong progress.
>> >>
>> >> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
>> >> else
>> >>
>> >> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>> >>
>> >> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
>> >> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
>> >> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
>> >> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
>> >> members to decide among the alternatives.
>> >>
>> >> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
>> >> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
>> >> one way or another.
>> >>
>> >> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>> >>
>> >> -Rob
>> >>
>> >
>> > My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting,
>> usually
>> > it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can
>> easily
>> > bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
>> > I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
>> > do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
>> > idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case
>> the
>> > voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
>> > So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
>> > votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
>> >
>>
>> The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate
>> [DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads. So it would be clear which is which.
>> And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person
>> makes, so they can change their vote freely.
>>
>> But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no
>> consensus.
>>
>> Would that work?
>>
>
> not really
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>> > --
>> > *Alexandro Colorado*
>> > *OpenOffice.org* Español
>> > http://es.openoffice.org
>> > fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
> fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
<hat type="mentor"/>
On 10/31/2011 4:35 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
...snip..
> Opinions about the name are everywhere.
And decisions about the name will be made by the active members of the
PPMC either having an obvious consensus, or by having a [VOTE] thread.
This is a critical issue to understand as the community here grows. A
successful project community definitely solicits and listens to the
feedback from it's users. But active project committers also need to be
careful to not let user input derail their energy and focus at actually
doing work on the project.
In the future, once the community matures and has more clearly
understood tasks and ways of working on various lists, I would expect a
proposal and basic decision on something like a new logo would be made
on the ooo-marketing@ list. But at the current time, while everyone is
still learning how to work together efficiently, I would recommend
having the decision here on ooo-dev@ still.
- Shane
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> As far as I can tell, it is a condition of Apache governance that it be done on the list. That is a requirement for how The Apache Way works. It is up to all of us to have it work.
>
> I don't believe, however, that ooo-marketing counts as a list where deliberation on matters of the project should happen.
I thought we were too quick to set that up. It bifurcates discussions. This is the first example.
>
> It does not strike me that a lazy consensus is appropriate there, unless it is to bring something to this list.
>
> I also notice that the choice of product name suddenly forked onto ooo-user too. Whoever did that was not being helpful.
It was a user who was having trouble posting to ooo-marketing.
Opinions about the name are everywhere.
Regards,
Dave
>
>
> - Dennis
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: acolorado@gmail.com [mailto:acolorado@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexandro Colorado
> Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:40
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
>>>> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
>>>> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
>>>> are making strong progress.
>>>>
>>>> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>>>>
>>>> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
>>>> else
>>>>
>>>> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>>>>
>>>> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
>>>> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
>>>> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
>>>> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
>>>> members to decide among the alternatives.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
>>>> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
>>>> one way or another.
>>>>
>>>> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>>>>
>>>> -Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>> My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting,
>> usually
>>> it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can
>> easily
>>> bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
>>> I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
>>> do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
>>> idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case
>> the
>>> voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
>>> So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
>>> votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
>>>
>>
>> The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate
>> [DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads. So it would be clear which is which.
>> And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person
>> makes, so they can change their vote freely.
>>
>> But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no
>> consensus.
>>
>> Would that work?
>>
>
> not really
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>> --
>>> *Alexandro Colorado*
>>> *OpenOffice.org* Español
>>> http://es.openoffice.org
>>> fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
> fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
RE: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
As far as I can tell, it is a condition of Apache governance that it be done on the list. That is a requirement for how The Apache Way works. It is up to all of us to have it work.
I don't believe, however, that ooo-marketing counts as a list where deliberation on matters of the project should happen.
It does not strike me that a lazy consensus is appropriate there, unless it is to bring something to this list.
I also notice that the choice of product name suddenly forked onto ooo-user too. Whoever did that was not being helpful.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: acolorado@gmail.com [mailto:acolorado@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Alexandro Colorado
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 12:40
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
> >> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
> >> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
> >> are making strong progress.
> >>
> >> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
> >>
> >> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
> >> else
> >>
> >> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
> >>
> >> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
> >> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
> >> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
> >> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
> >> members to decide among the alternatives.
> >>
> >> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
> >> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
> >> one way or another.
> >>
> >> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >
> > My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting,
> usually
> > it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can
> easily
> > bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
> > I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
> > do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
> > idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case
> the
> > voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
> > So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
> > votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
> >
>
> The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate
> [DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads. So it would be clear which is which.
> And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person
> makes, so they can change their vote freely.
>
> But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no
> consensus.
>
> Would that work?
>
not really
>
> -Rob
>
> > --
> > *Alexandro Colorado*
> > *OpenOffice.org* Español
> > http://es.openoffice.org
> > fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
> >
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
> >> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
> >> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
> >> are making strong progress.
> >>
> >> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
> >>
> >> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
> >> else
> >>
> >> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
> >>
> >> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
> >> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
> >> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
> >> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
> >> members to decide among the alternatives.
> >>
> >> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
> >> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
> >> one way or another.
> >>
> >> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
> >>
> >> -Rob
> >>
> >
> > My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting,
> usually
> > it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can
> easily
> > bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
> > I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
> > do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
> > idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case
> the
> > voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
> > So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
> > votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
> >
>
> The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate
> [DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads. So it would be clear which is which.
> And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person
> makes, so they can change their vote freely.
>
> But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no
> consensus.
>
> Would that work?
>
not really
>
> -Rob
>
> > --
> > *Alexandro Colorado*
> > *OpenOffice.org* Español
> > http://es.openoffice.org
> > fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
> >
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
>> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
>> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
>> are making strong progress.
>>
>> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>>
>> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
>> else
>>
>> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>>
>> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
>> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
>> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
>> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
>> members to decide among the alternatives.
>>
>> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
>> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
>> one way or another.
>>
>> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>
> My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting, usually
> it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can easily
> bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
> I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
> do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
> idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case the
> voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
> So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
> votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
>
The way an Apache project typically does this is via separate
[DISCUSSION] and [VOTE] threads. So it would be clear which is which.
And in the [VOTE] thread we would only count the last vote a person
makes, so they can change their vote freely.
But I would only have a [VOTE] if after 2 weeks there was still no consensus.
Would that work?
-Rob
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
> fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
>>>
>>> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>>>
>>
>> My intent was to have the discussion on ooo-marketing. I was just
>> notifying ooo-dev on the proposed terms and timing of the discussion.
>> I will start a new [DISCUSS] thread on only ooo-marketing and will
>> send a cc to ooo-dev when the [VOTE] thread kicks off as well. Sorry
>> if this caused confusion. You can stop cross posting now.
>
> Please don't cross-post the [VOTE]. You'll just start it up all over again. Instead send a separate notice to ooo-dev.
>
Good point. Otherwise the votes get posted multiple times as they are
cross posted.
-Rob
> Thanks!
> Dave
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Dennis E. Hamilton
>>> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
>>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:31 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
>>
>> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>>
>
> My intent was to have the discussion on ooo-marketing. I was just
> notifying ooo-dev on the proposed terms and timing of the discussion.
> I will start a new [DISCUSS] thread on only ooo-marketing and will
> send a cc to ooo-dev when the [VOTE] thread kicks off as well. Sorry
> if this caused confusion. You can stop cross posting now.
Please don't cross-post the [VOTE]. You'll just start it up all over again. Instead send a separate notice to ooo-dev.
Thanks!
Dave
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Dennis E. Hamilton
>> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:35 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton
<de...@acm.org> wrote:
> It does not let the PPMC members *observe* the voting and any [VOTE][DISCUSS] however, unless they also subscribe.
>
Certainly it allows them to observe. All PPMC members is able to
subscribe to the list. They can also look in the archives.
The need for oversight and transparency does not mean that everything
occur on ooo-dev and only ooo-dev. We just voted, for example, to
allow private discussions and decsions on the forums, with the ability
for PPMC members, on request, to be allowed in. Subscribing to
ooo-marketing is far easier than that. It is public, as are the
archives.
This is not rocket science, Dennis.
-Rob
> As one pedantist to another, I'll let you handle all of those moderation requests.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:26
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> -1 to a [VOTE] conducted on the ooo-marketing list if it is expected to be a binding agreement of the project.
>>
>> That would require the PPMC to all subscribe and it would require anyone who is concerned with only this issue to subscribe here.
>>
>
> Incorrect, as you know. You can send a note to ooo-marketing, even
> without subscribing. You know that. In fact you did this a few hours
> ago.
>
> Let's put the process pedantry back in the cage. It is not helpful.
>
> -Rob
>
>> There is one place to "speak to the PPMC" in public, and it is ooo-dev.
>>
>> - Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 08:32
>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
>>>
>>> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>>>
>>
>> My intent was to have the discussion on ooo-marketing. I was just
>> notifying ooo-dev on the proposed terms and timing of the discussion.
>> I will start a new [DISCUSS] thread on only ooo-marketing and will
>> send a cc to ooo-dev when the [VOTE] thread kicks off as well. Sorry
>> if this caused confusion. You can stop cross posting now.
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>>> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> - Dennis E. Hamilton
>>> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
>>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
RE: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.
It does not let the PPMC members *observe* the voting and any [VOTE][DISCUSS] however, unless they also subscribe.
As one pedantist to another, I'll let you handle all of those moderation requests.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 10:26
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1 to a [VOTE] conducted on the ooo-marketing list if it is expected to be a binding agreement of the project.
>
> That would require the PPMC to all subscribe and it would require anyone who is concerned with only this issue to subscribe here.
>
Incorrect, as you know. You can send a note to ooo-marketing, even
without subscribing. You know that. In fact you did this a few hours
ago.
Let's put the process pedantry back in the cage. It is not helpful.
-Rob
> There is one place to "speak to the PPMC" in public, and it is ooo-dev.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 08:32
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
>>
>> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>>
>
> My intent was to have the discussion on ooo-marketing. I was just
> notifying ooo-dev on the proposed terms and timing of the discussion.
> I will start a new [DISCUSS] thread on only ooo-marketing and will
> send a cc to ooo-dev when the [VOTE] thread kicks off as well. Sorry
> if this caused confusion. You can stop cross posting now.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Dennis E. Hamilton
>> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> -1 to a [VOTE] conducted on the ooo-marketing list if it is expected to be a binding agreement of the project.
>
> That would require the PPMC to all subscribe and it would require anyone who is concerned with only this issue to subscribe here.
>
Incorrect, as you know. You can send a note to ooo-marketing, even
without subscribing. You know that. In fact you did this a few hours
ago.
Let's put the process pedantry back in the cage. It is not helpful.
-Rob
> There is one place to "speak to the PPMC" in public, and it is ooo-dev.
>
> - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 08:32
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
>> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
>>
>> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>>
>
> My intent was to have the discussion on ooo-marketing. I was just
> notifying ooo-dev on the proposed terms and timing of the discussion.
> I will start a new [DISCUSS] thread on only ooo-marketing and will
> send a cc to ooo-dev when the [VOTE] thread kicks off as well. Sorry
> if this caused confusion. You can stop cross posting now.
>
> -Rob
>
>
>> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
>>
>>
>>
>> - Dennis E. Hamilton
>> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
RE: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
-1 to a [VOTE] conducted on the ooo-marketing list if it is expected to be a binding agreement of the project.
That would require the PPMC to all subscribe and it would require anyone who is concerned with only this issue to subscribe here.
There is one place to "speak to the PPMC" in public, and it is ooo-dev.
- Dennis
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir@apache.org]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 08:32
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org; ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
>
> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>
My intent was to have the discussion on ooo-marketing. I was just
notifying ooo-dev on the proposed terms and timing of the discussion.
I will start a new [DISCUSS] thread on only ooo-marketing and will
send a cc to ooo-dev when the [VOTE] thread kicks off as well. Sorry
if this caused confusion. You can stop cross posting now.
-Rob
> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
>
>
>
> - Dennis E. Hamilton
> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
>
> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>
My intent was to have the discussion on ooo-marketing. I was just
notifying ooo-dev on the proposed terms and timing of the discussion.
I will start a new [DISCUSS] thread on only ooo-marketing and will
send a cc to ooo-dev when the [VOTE] thread kicks off as well. Sorry
if this caused confusion. You can stop cross posting now.
-Rob
> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
>
>
>
> - Dennis E. Hamilton
> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org> wrote:
> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
>
> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>
My intent was to have the discussion on ooo-marketing. I was just
notifying ooo-dev on the proposed terms and timing of the discussion.
I will start a new [DISCUSS] thread on only ooo-marketing and will
send a cc to ooo-dev when the [VOTE] thread kicks off as well. Sorry
if this caused confusion. You can stop cross posting now.
-Rob
> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
>
>
>
> - Dennis E. Hamilton
> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>
>
>
>
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
posted only to ooo-dev
On Nov 1, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
SInce I use rules to move mail to folders these all looked like ooo-dev to me as that rule is earlier in my list.
So, +1. Please be careful with cross-posting.
I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
Shane suggested continuing here on ooo-dev this time and later use ooo-marketing.
>
>
> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
Perhaps a DISCUSS on ooo-marketing can be announced on ooo-dev with an [ooo-marketing] tag?
Regards,
Dave
>
>
>
> - Dennis E. Hamilton
> tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
> dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
>
>
>
>
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Terry <te...@yahoo.com.au>.
I agree wholeheartedly. There seems to be no point to having a discussion here except that it may involve more people becoming involved in the discussion. I do not understand why members of the ooo-dev list who are interested in marketing cannot join this list. Nor do I understand why, now that this list exists, a discussion is being held on ooo-dev. Being skilled in the use of code does not confer omniscience.
When I have participated in product naming and branding discussions, they have been conducted as a 'brainstorming' discussion. Choosing a name, symbols, icons and logos isn't like writing code. For brainstorming, the more contributions the better.
Brands, it seems, are the domain of the trademarks list. So, why discuss that here? Even though brands are off limits, I would like to make one comment. The default mime-type icons are nondescript and, without careful scrutiny, indistinguishable from one another. I happened to find some distinctive icons on my system (Linux) in a folder named 'locolor'. They or the old icons (still in use on the community forum) are much more attractive than the present default icons. The same icons were once used as logos but I don't know whether that is still the case.
As far as the product name is concerned, some people are uneasy about using 'OpenOffice' with '.org'. I understand that and 'Apache Office' would be fine. I have an inkling that in the USA Microsoft has virtually gained proprietary rights to the word 'office'; perhaps someone from the USA can comment. If that is the case, how would 'ApacheOffice' go down with the ASF? Lotus Office, from memory, was called 'SmartSuite'. Are Symphony and OO to be merged? 'Apache OfficeSuite' is one possibility. There are, no doubt, more possibilities, hence the reason for involving more people in the discussion.
The old name comes with some negative baggage as well as the positive one of familiarity and currency. LibreOffice is a new name and the product has, in a short time, gained many users. Perhaps the powers that be should be thinking of starting with a clean slate. It may well be a successful marketing ploy to put out a sign saying "under new management."
I'll read through the other emails later. My present thinking is that members of this list who are not on the ooo-dev list can find better things to do than engage in an academic discussion.
Regards, Terry
----- Original Message -----
> From: Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>
> To: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org; ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 November 2011 2:15 AM
> Subject: RE: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
>
> If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being
> conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread
> forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces
> anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that
> eventuality is forestalled.
>
> I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
>
> At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the
> clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs
> to be a [DISCUSS] there.
><snip>
>
RE: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
- Dennis E. Hamilton
tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
RE: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.
If every post on this thread is being cross-posted to two lists, why is it being conducted on two lists? All it does is expose the prospect of the thread forking between the two lists and turning into a tangled mess. It also forces anyone who is keen on this topic to read both lists to make sure that eventuality is forestalled.
I recommend that a single list be chosen for continuation.
At present, instead of providing shelter of the ooo-marketing list from the clutter on ooo-dev, this is either adding clutter to ooo-dev or it really needs to be a [DISCUSS] there.
- Dennis E. Hamilton
tools for document interoperability, <http://nfoWorks.org/>
dennis.hamilton@acm.org gsm: +1-206-779-9430 @orcmid
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 1, 2011 12:52 AM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Nov 2011, at 00:44, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> >
> > My understanding is that this "oddity" came about because the
> > "OpenOffice" trademark is owned by another group (or groups?) in
> > various countries.
>
> That was indeed the case, but the number of places where there is an
overlapping registration has become very small due to great work by the Sun
trademark law team over the last few years.
>
> > I expect that we would require at least some
> > confidence that they wouldn't give us grief, if we were to call the
> > project Apache OpenOffice. (We'd also have to be careful to always use
> > the full name, and not to abbreviate to "OpenOffice")
>
> While I'd expect project members acting in an official capacity to be
very careful with how they cite the project name anyway (or face the Wrath
of Shane), abbreviating the name to "Open Office" or variants has been
common casual usage for years already with little consequence.
>
> S.
Also note that the "(Incubating)"is not optional at this point (I say this
because I was reading a slide deck this morning that did not make this
distinction).
Ross
>
>
On Nov 1, 2011 12:52 AM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Ross Gardler <rg...@opendirective.com>.
Sent from my mobile device, please forgive errors and brevity.
On Nov 1, 2011 12:52 AM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Nov 2011, at 00:44, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
> >
> > My understanding is that this "oddity" came about because the
> > "OpenOffice" trademark is owned by another group (or groups?) in
> > various countries.
>
> That was indeed the case, but the number of places where there is an
overlapping registration has become very small due to great work by the Sun
trademark law team over the last few years.
>
> > I expect that we would require at least some
> > confidence that they wouldn't give us grief, if we were to call the
> > project Apache OpenOffice. (We'd also have to be careful to always use
> > the full name, and not to abbreviate to "OpenOffice")
>
> While I'd expect project members acting in an official capacity to be
very careful with how they cite the project name anyway (or face the Wrath
of Shane), abbreviating the name to "Open Office" or variants has been
common casual usage for years already with little consequence.
>
> S.
Also note that the "(Incubating)"is not optional at this point (I say this
because I was reading a slide deck this morning that did not make this
distinction).
Ross
>
>
On Nov 1, 2011 12:52 AM, "Simon Phipps" <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 1 Nov 2011, at 00:44, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>
> My understanding is that this "oddity" came about because the
> "OpenOffice" trademark is owned by another group (or groups?) in
> various countries.
That was indeed the case, but the number of places where there is an overlapping registration has become very small due to great work by the Sun trademark law team over the last few years.
> I expect that we would require at least some
> confidence that they wouldn't give us grief, if we were to call the
> project Apache OpenOffice. (We'd also have to be careful to always use
> the full name, and not to abbreviate to "OpenOffice")
While I'd expect project members acting in an official capacity to be very careful with how they cite the project name anyway (or face the Wrath of Shane), abbreviating the name to "Open Office" or variants has been common casual usage for years already with little consequence.
S.
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 1 Nov 2011, at 00:44, Nóirín Plunkett wrote:
>
> My understanding is that this "oddity" came about because the
> "OpenOffice" trademark is owned by another group (or groups?) in
> various countries.
That was indeed the case, but the number of places where there is an overlapping registration has become very small due to great work by the Sun trademark law team over the last few years.
> I expect that we would require at least some
> confidence that they wouldn't give us grief, if we were to call the
> project Apache OpenOffice. (We'd also have to be careful to always use
> the full name, and not to abbreviate to "OpenOffice")
While I'd expect project members acting in an official capacity to be very careful with how they cite the project name anyway (or face the Wrath of Shane), abbreviating the name to "Open Office" or variants has been common casual usage for years already with little consequence.
S.
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 8:01 PM, Terry wrote:
> ...snip...
>>
>> As far as the substance is concerned,
>>
>> 1. Name:
>> The word 'Apache' has to be used. 'OpenOffice' has history and
>> familiarity. The
>> suffix '.org' is no longer needed. It was an oddity to name software with
>> the address
>> of a website.
>
> In particular, people should read:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs
>
My understanding is that this "oddity" came about because the
"OpenOffice" trademark is owned by another group (or groups?) in
various countries. I expect that we would require at least some
confidence that they wouldn't give us grief, if we were to call the
project Apache OpenOffice. (We'd also have to be careful to always use
the full name, and not to abbreviate to "OpenOffice")
Noirin
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Nóirín Plunkett <no...@apache.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org> wrote:
> On 10/31/2011 8:01 PM, Terry wrote:
> ...snip...
>>
>> As far as the substance is concerned,
>>
>> 1. Name:
>> The word 'Apache' has to be used. 'OpenOffice' has history and
>> familiarity. The
>> suffix '.org' is no longer needed. It was an oddity to name software with
>> the address
>> of a website.
>
> In particular, people should read:
>
> http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs
>
My understanding is that this "oddity" came about because the
"OpenOffice" trademark is owned by another group (or groups?) in
various countries. I expect that we would require at least some
confidence that they wouldn't give us grief, if we were to call the
project Apache OpenOffice. (We'd also have to be careful to always use
the full name, and not to abbreviate to "OpenOffice")
Noirin
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
One suggestion: make it clear which list we're primarily discussing any
proposals on, so we don't keep having threads come and go between lists.
I would normally expect that major decisions for the project would be
decided by a [VOTE] thread on the ooo-dev@ list.
On 10/31/2011 8:01 PM, Terry wrote:
...snip...
> As far as the substance is concerned,
>
> 1. Name:
> The word 'Apache' has to be used. 'OpenOffice' has history and familiarity. The
> suffix '.org' is no longer needed. It was an oddity to name software with the address
> of a website.
In particular, people should read:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs
>
> 2. Logos:
> The Apache logo must be used. To make sure that people recognise the heritage of the
> software, at least one OpenOffice logo should be used. This is a link to a page containing
> brands: http://www.openoffice.org/trademark/brandrefresh.html
The project is free to choose a graphical logo in their own style.
There is *no* requirement to include the Apache feather in the actual
product logo; if the project does happen to want to incorporate the
feather in your product logo, you must use the correct
colors/orientation/style of the master logo as displayed on apache.org
I would strongly suggest that someplace in the navigation of the various
websites - either part of a navbar, menu links, or the footer - have
either a noticeable text link or a feather with a link to the main
Apache homepage, to emphasize that this is an Apache project.
- Shane
P.S. Reminder: if the project has a specific question about Apache
branding, please email trademarks@ directly. While I do read this/these
list(s) as a mentor fairly regularly, specific branding questions belong
on tradmarks@
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
One suggestion: make it clear which list we're primarily discussing any
proposals on, so we don't keep having threads come and go between lists.
I would normally expect that major decisions for the project would be
decided by a [VOTE] thread on the ooo-dev@ list.
On 10/31/2011 8:01 PM, Terry wrote:
...snip...
> As far as the substance is concerned,
>
> 1. Name:
> The word 'Apache' has to be used. 'OpenOffice' has history and familiarity. The
> suffix '.org' is no longer needed. It was an oddity to name software with the address
> of a website.
In particular, people should read:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs
>
> 2. Logos:
> The Apache logo must be used. To make sure that people recognise the heritage of the
> software, at least one OpenOffice logo should be used. This is a link to a page containing
> brands: http://www.openoffice.org/trademark/brandrefresh.html
The project is free to choose a graphical logo in their own style.
There is *no* requirement to include the Apache feather in the actual
product logo; if the project does happen to want to incorporate the
feather in your product logo, you must use the correct
colors/orientation/style of the master logo as displayed on apache.org
I would strongly suggest that someplace in the navigation of the various
websites - either part of a navbar, menu links, or the footer - have
either a noticeable text link or a feather with a link to the main
Apache homepage, to emphasize that this is an Apache project.
- Shane
P.S. Reminder: if the project has a specific question about Apache
branding, please email trademarks@ directly. While I do read this/these
list(s) as a mentor fairly regularly, specific branding questions belong
on tradmarks@
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Terry <te...@yahoo.com.au>.
----- Original Message -----
> From: Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: ooo-marketing@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2011 6:32 AM
> Subject: Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
>> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
>> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
>> are making strong progress.
>>
>> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>>
>> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
>> else
>>
>> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>>
>> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
>> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
>> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
>> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
>> members to decide among the alternatives.
>>
>> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
>> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
>> one way or another.
>>
>> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>>
>> -Rob
I agree with the general approach and time frame. I think the questions can be resolved easily.
> My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting, usually
> it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can easily
> bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
> I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
> do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
> idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case the
> voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
> So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
> votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
>
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
> fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
By 'forum' do you mean the community forum or this mailing list? A [VOTE] thread
on either issue (name or logos) may prove to be necessary but, surely, that does
not need to be decided at the outset.
As far as the substance is concerned,
1. Name:
The word 'Apache' has to be used. 'OpenOffice' has history and familiarity. The
suffix '.org' is no longer needed. It was an oddity to name software with the address
of a website.
2. Logos:
The Apache logo must be used. To make sure that people recognise the heritage of the
software, at least one OpenOffice logo should be used. This is a link to a page containing
brands: http://www.openoffice.org/trademark/brandrefresh.html
Regards, Terry
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
> are making strong progress.
>
> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>
> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
> else
>
> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>
> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
> members to decide among the alternatives.
>
> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
> one way or another.
>
> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>
> -Rob
>
My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting, usually
it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can easily
bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case the
voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6
Re: Process for deciding on branding strategy for our first release
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:15 PM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> Looking at the dev work that remains, I think we need to move forward
> on this with deliberate speed. This impacts both the branding on our
> 3.4 release, as well as the branding on our web sites, both of which
> are making strong progress.
>
> I think there are two main elements we need to decide on:
>
> 1) Product name: Apache OpenOffice, Apache OpenOffice.org or something
> else
>
> 2) Logo, for use on website, product splash screen etc.
>
> I propose that we discuss these topics on the ooo-marketing for two
> weeks, until November 14th. If there is consensus on these questions
> then we will go forward to implement that consensus. But if there is
> no consensus by the 14th, then we will have a 72-hour vote of PPMC
> members to decide among the alternatives.
>
> Of course, it is better to reach consensus on such questions, but a
> product name is not optional, so we need to resolve these questions
> one way or another.
>
> Any objections to this general approach and time frame?
>
> -Rob
>
My largest issue is basically the way is being handled this voting, usually
it seems that is not as easily traceable as a poll. Mailing list can easily
bury vote by just having chatty people or flamewars.
I rather see the forum as a more dynamic way to reach consensus like they
do with a voting poll separate from the overall discussion why is a good
idea or not. Also I would miss the ability to change the voting in case the
voter realize that he has a change of heart. I do like the timeline.
So I would propose a decision making framework to account vote, change
votes, and easily browse/review overall group decisions.
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
fingerprint: E62B CF77 1BEA 0749 C0B8 50B9 3DE6 A84A 68D0 72E6